934 karma · joined February 11, 2012
"I know someone who is working on a Ruby implementation and making very good strides and is not talking about it publicly at all--and I think you'll be surprised when you find out about it."
Is Brian Ford talking about Topaz [1]?
[1] http://docs.topazruby.com/en/latest/blog/announcing-topaz/
[...]
> There are two ways to make keys.
I guess I haven't had enough whiskey yet.
I learned for myself a few key signs that show when a project is abandoned:
* The author never comments on or closes issues.
* Issues continue to be opened, but users begin to report bugs in more basic functionality as time goes on.
* The author has a Twitter feed or blog (or other source of life signs) which he updates. This provides a signal which shows that the author is actively focusing his efforts elsewhere. A lack of public activity is not a signal, because it leaves room for speculation. Activity elsewhere likely means the author has moved on.
All of these signs taken together indicate that a project is abandoned. Here's an example of such a project: Brian Noguchi's everyauth [1]. There are 163 issues open, and all recent ones have no trace of comments from Brian (sign 1). One of these issues is mine. The example code in the repository is broken, and one of the OAuth modules has a showstopper bug (sign 2)[2]. Brian's Github activity shows he is working on the admittedly more important derby.js project (sign 3)[3].
I am not focusing on Brian because I want to shame him, but everyauth is a good example of an abandoned project, and all of its users should pack up and move on.
[1] https://github.com/bnoguchi/everyauth
Sorry to break it to you like this, but you are an active user of G+. You are actively using a major feature of the product, namely Hangouts. You may not be using it in the way that Google intended it (business vs. personal use), but you are indeed using it.
> I'm actually kind of annoyed every time I have to log onto Google+ to do something because I know they are about to add me to some press release statistic. There's something "evil" about that in my opinion.
Really? So you don't like it when companies release statements about the number of active users on their site? I think you would be hard pressed to find a publicly traded company that doesn't report their number of active users--in press releases, too, no less.
I think what you're trying to say is that you feel that Google+ Hangouts are not a true part of Google+? Because this feature does not specifically need to belong to Google+? (Correct me if I have misjudged your opinion.) Well, sure, it doesn't have to, but Google wants it there, and it makes sense from a social perspective.
You may be using a subset of Google+ features, but that still makes you a user--just like if you only used Skype or Facebook for the video chat feature, you would still be a user.
What does that even mean? Google doesn't sell the Nexus 4 for $550 or anything close to that.
[1] http://www.quirky.com/products/36-Broom-Groomer-Broom-Cleani...
"[Laziness] makes you write labor-saving programs that other people will find useful, and document what you wrote so you don't have to answer so many questions about it. Hence, the first great virtue of a programmer."
var i = 0;
var i = [];
> The 28-year-old Rothenberg explains that the goal of his one-man firm “is to open up my network to the founders and be available as a sounding board for them while taking a fraction of the cap table space that larger investors take. My network is often complementary to the other investors on the cap table, as they are often older than the founders while I typically invest in founders around my age.”
In this case, the metric seems to be VC-derived utility per dollar invested. Since utility is a nebulous concept, this metric is by definition also nebulous and inexact.
> How is javascript like assembly?
You're right that JavaScript is not like assembly; it's more like bytecode. A number of different languages compile to JavaScript (CoffeeScript, TypeKit, Fay), which is then interpreted. While the intent of JavaScript is that it should be readable by humans, in practice this does not happen thanks to production minification. This is more like bytecode. For example, you can Java .class file with a hex editor, but you'll need software to do that, or a hex editor and a lot of time.
tl;dr: The author means to say that JavaScript is used as a building block for other languages used to write client-side logic.
"An old Java convention is keeping the name of the file and it's class the same."
One correction, the Java compiler requires the filename to be the same as the public class present in the file. You will see a compile time error if this condition is not met.
You can order it through them rather than Amazon to get the eBook directly.
I'm currently doing a rewrite in Backbone, which is extremely amenable to this kind of design. Unit testing so far has been pretty painless, too. Creating a new server instance is as easy as calling a function to get a server object with the endpoints specified. Start the server in setup, close it in teardown. Node.js makes this stuff super easy to automate, provided you can learn to live with callbacks and promises.
[1] Example playlist: http://muxamp.com/1776
Freudian slip? I think you mean the opposite going by the rest of your story. ;)
At the very least, creating a product--especially on a new platform--costs money. People need to be paid. I am surprised someone in this community would hold your attitude, but your post is so trollish that I can't see any value in it.